Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council remands hotel‑to‑housing text amendment after heated public comment; planning commission to revisit
Summary
After lengthy public comment and council debate, council voted to remand an applicant‑filed text amendment (Blue Hour Housing) that would allow 1:1 hotel‑to‑dwelling unit conversions — and then adopted a denial amendment on the applicant's version — sending the matter back to the planning commission for staff‑applicant work and further review.
Town staff and an applicant seeking to enable hotel‑to‑multifamily conversions presented competing text‑amendment drafts to the Town Council on Feb. 4. The applicant, Chris Breen of Blue Hour Housing, proposed an amendment that would permit adaptive reuse of existing hotel and motel buildings in multiple zoning districts at a conversion ratio of up to one guest room per dwelling unit, with new minimum and maximum communal‑space rules and a one‑to‑one parking proposal in some cases.
Planning Director Missy Lueck told council the planning commission had held a public hearing on Jan. 15 and recommended denial (5–3), and that staff had also prepared its own version of a conversion amendment as part of a wider set of priority LMO amendments. Breen reiterated the applicant's intent to create workforce‑focused units and described proposed safeguards (no short‑term rentals, unit‑size categories and an employment‑based occupancy requirement).
Dozens of public commenters urged denial, citing concerns about applicant experience, small unit sizes (micro efficiencies as small as 220 square feet), potential density increases in some districts (example cited: a 119‑unit hotel could become ~32 dwelling units per acre under a 1:1 rule), parking, occupancy limits and the prospect that conversions could house seasonal or visa workers. Supporters, including developers and a CCDC board member, said conversions are a rapid way to add workforce housing and could relieve staffing shortages.
Council action: after extended debate councilmembers offered and voted on competing motions. An amendment to deny the applicant's specific proposal passed by a 4–3 vote. The council then voted 4–3 in favor of remanding the matter to the planning commission with direction that applicant and staff work together on a revised proposal and that planning commission deliver a recommendation within the statutory remand window.
Next steps: Staff said it will coordinate an expedited review and work with the applicant to reconcile proposals; the council also signaled it will consider staff's priority LMO amendments on a separate schedule (a staff version was planned to come back for first reading in April). The planning commission has the remand responsibility and the code requires a recommendation within 30 days of remand unless continued.
